Posted on 06/25/2005 12:52:48 PM PDT by freespirited
While many colleges bar discrimination against gay people, many religious colleges do not, because their anti-bias regulations do not cover sexual orientation.
Seton Hall University, a Roman Catholic institution, is an exception. Its anti-bias policy specifically covers sexual orientation. And that set the stage for an unusual legal dispute over the university’s right to assert its religious identity in denying recognition to a gay student group.
A New Jersey court had been poised to allow a suit against the university go forward. But an appeals court ruled Wednesday that Seton Hall was within its rights to deny recognition to the group.
The suit was brought by Anthony Romeo, a gay student at Seton Hall who says that he enrolled there in part because of the university’s nondiscrimination policy. When he was denied the right to create a gay student group, he sued under New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws and for breach of contract. Typically, religious colleges are exempt from bias regulations that conflict with their religious views, so Catholic colleges are exempt from requirements that they treat gay people equally.
Romeo’s argument was that Seton Hall gave up that right when it pledged not to discriminate against gay people.
But the appeals court said otherwise. It cited a series of rulings in other courts that in essence make it impossible for a religious institution to give up its right to invoke its religious status. As a result, the court dismissed the suit, saying that it did not want to question the university’s “fundamental religious ideals.”
Thomas White, a spokesman for Seton Hall, said that the decision “affirms that religious organizations are legally permitted to act in accordance with their doctrines.”
He said it was unfair to hold Seton Hall to a higher standard than other religious colleges because of its anti-bias policies. “We don’t allow discrimination in admissions and hiring,” he said. “We want our gay and lesbian students to feel comfortable on campus, but we also have to balance that with the mission and goals of being a Catholic institution.”
Thomas D. Shanahan, Romeo’s lawyer, said that the court’s ruling would allow religious colleges to ignore their own policies any time they wanted. “Students should be able to hold a university to its own policy,” he said.
Shanahan said he was planning to appeal to New Jersey’s Supreme Court. He said that there would be no case if Seton Hall had not pledged not to discriminate. But he said that Romeo probably would have gone elsewhere and Seton Hall wouldn’t have had him as a student.
“He made a decision based on how the school represented itself,” Shanahan said. “It’s a huge double standard for Seton Hall then to discriminate.”
The Right to Follow Religious Conscience and Beliefs Upheld.
Should be the title.
Seton Hall is protected by separation of church and state---government keep out!!!!
I find the policy odd, but I'm glad they at least halfway hold onto their values. Why, however, would they want to hire homosexuals?
At least one court gets it right. How can anyone say that a religion can't practice it's beliefs? I guess people will sue about anything in this day and age.
< “He made a decision based on how the school represented itself,” ... >
Umm...I wonder how up front he was when enrolling that he wanted to start a gay organization on campus.
Any Catholic institution would be bound by the Authoritative nature of the scriptures. To do otherwise would extinguish their witness
When you promise "non-descrimination based on sexual orientation" can you really be all that surprised when chickens come home to roost? So, although I hope Seton Hall wins, they needlesly left themselves vulnerable...
< Why, however, would they want to hire homosexuals? >
He was a student wanting to start a gay organization on campus. There was no discrimination in allowing him to enroll (thus the anti-discrimination in enrollment), however, what they won't accept is "activism" in anything opposite to their beliefs. It was the activism part that was upheld, as I understood it.
Seaton Hall should immediately drop sexual orientation as a protected class from it's non-discrimination policy. If they do not, they are asking for this sort of thing, again and again.
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
They may have won this skirmish, but now that someone has made news, the university will be harrassed incessantly.
Whoa, wait a minute! The college states that it will not discriminate against admission of homosexual students. But it does not state that it has suspended a religious belief that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.
It would be immoral to have a policy that denies the human dignity of individuals just because their sexuality is morally confused.
What gets me, the plaintiff attended the school because its moral environment attracted him, and then he worked to change it to what HIS opinion of proper moral environment is, which would make it no longer the moral environment that attracted him.
Illogical, but then what moral relativist champions logic as a guide?
All discrimination is, is people using their right of self defence to protect their way of life and their family and friends. Look how much crime has increased sence we lost our right to discriminate
it's about time that the church takes it seriously what is said in Leviticus chapter 18.
--Whoa, wait a minute! The college states that it will not discriminate against admission of homosexual students. But it does not state that it has suspended a religious belief that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.--
The whole idea of not "discriminating against homosexual students" is a place you should not go. It's problematic enough to say you won't discriminate based on skin color--that policy has a lot of virtue to it. But a homosexual orientation is changeable and something kids ought never to be encouraged to accept. Once Seton Hall (or whoever) goes that far down homosexual road, they can expect more trouble in the future!
Yes but it also says no discrimination in hiring. I would think they would see employees as representatives of their faith. So why hire homosexuals?
So you love the sinner by hiring him to respresent the faith to other students? What about loving the other students enough to hire wise teachers who actually believe what the Bible teaches?
You'd think this would be a no-brainer.
Touche. That's fine. But then look at what they get for their godwill!
None of us is so pure that it could be said that we "represent the faith", beyond that we are all sinners. If a teacher specifically tries to teach against the Word, they should be fired & I would have "cause" against any claim of discrimination. A student trying to promote a different understanding should be told no, just as this student was told no. This exercise was good instruction to the other students, on how to stand up for what the Bible teaches.
What about loving the other students enough to hire wise teachers who actually believe what the Bible teaches?
There is nothing in any of the Bible's teachings that challenge you? In other words, are you without sin? Do you think that no one challenged by homosexual desires can recognize it as sin?
They got a powerful teaching moment.
To say "We don't discriminate against homosexuals in hiring" is to say that we hire people who define their very nature by this particular degrading sin. That is unwise and contradictory.
God offers forgiveness to the homosexual, just as all other sinners, if he repents and turns to God in faith. Evidence of that regenerate event would surely be a person who no longer defined himself by his sin.
Well, I more or less agree with #25. You are an optimist to say that Seton Hall gets a teaching moment. Cuz, as of right now, it almost looks more like they are learning a thing or to, that they are teaching a thing or two...
I figured you would.
When a person says "I am a homosexual" they are making a statement about who God created them to be. No truly repentant Christian would define themselves by any sin. They might say "I used to be a homosexual" or "I used to practice the sin of homosexuality." (More accurate in that there really is no such noun as a "homosexual" in the way it is so frequently used. There are only sinners who practice the sin of homosexuality." This is the same thing as a "thief" being "one who practices thievery." I doubt the college has a nondiscrimination clause including thieves.) Applicants might say that they struggle with the evil temptation of homosexuality.
I agree.
But call themselves a homosexuals? That's just not true Christian thought right on its face.
Who says they call themselves homosexuals? Is the question asked on the application or during the interview? If not, but the applicant feels the need to tell the school, how they tell the school & what they say will tell the school whether or not their beliefs are in line or against the Bible's teachings. Again, I have found "cause" against a claim of discrimination. Some activists feel it is their duty to "out" those in the closet, especially those who call the sin a sin. What if the school finds out about a good teacher's failure to overcome their personal challenge, because they were "outted"?
To say "We don't discriminate against homosexuals in hiring" is to say that we hire people who define their very nature by this particular degrading sin. That is unwise and contradictory.
The school says that they do not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation". A desire to allow "gay and lesbian students to feel comfortable on campus" doesn't mean that they will or should be spared from Biblical teaching, that acting on their "orientation" is sinful & about their need to repent.
God offers forgiveness to the homosexual, just as all other sinners, if he repents and turns to God in faith. Evidence of that regenerate event would surely be a person who no longer defined himself by his sin.
If they are not allowed into the community that will tell them that, how do you think they will ever hear the message that is important for them to hear? Why bother teaching scripture about homosexuality, if you're only going to sing to the choir?
While I am an optimist, that has nothing to do with my statement. The right road is often the more difficult road to travel. People sue schools & employers all of the time & for all kinds of reasons. The only way to avoid those kinds of actions is to call quits & shut the place down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.